Nuclear Part of Energy Solution, Too
Last week, Barack Obama decided that drilling was acceptable…Sort of. To this point, though, I don’t think that he’s changed his opinion that nuclear power is part of the solution. According to this article, that gives Sen. McCain a major advantage in Michigan. I’ll bet that Sen. Obama’s mind will change on nuclear if it’s hurting him in the polls.
U.S. Sen. John McCain is scheduled to tour DTE Energy’s Fermi II nuclear power plant Tuesday to highlight his support for the development of nuclear energy. It’s a good opportunity for the presumptive GOP presidential nominee to sharpen the contrast between his energy views and those of the leadership of the Democratic Party.
Michigan voters could then have a clear set of choices on the energy issue, which a recent Detroit News/WXYZ poll said was one of their top concerns. State voters, according to the poll, support the Arizona Republican’s positions calling for the building of 45 new nuclear power plants and allowing oil drilling off of the nation’s coasts.
Sen. McCain’s Lexington Plan includes nuclear power. He hasn’t backed away from it. He’s been consistent, which is what clear-thinking leaders do. This proves that he’s thought things through before putting the Lexington Plan together.
From a thought process standpoint, compare Sen. McCain’s thinking the Lexington Plan through with Sen. Obama’s trip to Iraq. Sen. McCain listened to experts, then devised a plan. Sen. Obama laid out his plan before the trip, then listened to the experts (Gen. Petraeus, Gen. Odierno), then headed off for Europe. Before returning to the U.S., Sen. Obama told Tom Brokaw that everything was as he expected and that he hadn’t learned anything unexpected during the trip.
The contrast is stark. Sen. McCain listened, then led on energy, including drilling and nuclear power in his proposal. Sen. Obama still hasn’t changed on nuclear power but he’s done the ‘Me, too’ act on drilling. That isn’t leadership. That’s what followers do.
This contrast isn’t just about energy, either. It’s impossible to forget that Sen. McCain led by advocating the Surge. The statistics prove that the Surge was successful. The benchmarks getting met is another bit of proof that it worked in stabilizing the country politically, not just from a security standpoint.
Compare that with Sen. Obama initially saying that the Surge would make matters worse, then refusing to tell Mr. Brokaw that he was wrong about the Surge. Even then, he claimed that he always thought sending 20,000 troops would make a difference.
Sen. Obama is a dishonest reactionary. That isn’t the mark of a leader. When Sen. Obama sees that a strong majority of people favor building nuclear power plants, I’ll bet money that he’ll suddenly discover a new appreciation for nuclear. I’ll especially bet that he’ll cite France’s nuclear power plan for his change of heart.
Michigan’s Fermi II plant on the shores of Lake Erie near the Ohio border, the site of McCain’s tour, is one of three such plants in Michigan that supply about 25 percent of the state’s energy needs. More nuclear plants, properly regulated for safety, could have a significant effect on the nation’s consumption of oil, coal, and natural gas.
Why don’t Democrats permit nuclear power to be part of the solution? It’s clean from a greenhouse gas standpoint. It’s cheap. It would make a huge dent in people’s electric bills. This is vitally important to main street Americans, which is why I’m predicting Sen. McCain’s Lexington Plan will resonate with voters.
Technorati Tags: Gas Crisis, Barack Obama, John McCain, Nuclear Power, Lexington Plan, Surge, David Petraeus, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog